Cleaner Engineering and Technology 1 (2020) 100019

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Engineering and Technology

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/cleaner-engineering-and-technology

A conceptual foundation for effective construction and demolition

waste management
Kamyar Kabirifar a, *, Mohammad Mojtahedi a, Cynthia Changxin Wang a, Vivian W.Y.Tamb
a
Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
b
School of Built Environment, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Construction and demolition waste (CDW) is described as a material which is indispensably arisen from con-
Construction and demolition waste struction and demolition (C&D) activities and ought to be effectively managed, otherwise, its improper man-
management agement can produce negative economic, environmental, and social impacts. Effective management of CDW leads
Conceptual framework
to the corroboration of structures and leading to an authentic impact on natural systems. Therefore, it is vital to
Waste management hierarchy
Sustainability concept
consider a potent concept capable of analyzing effective construction and demolition waste management
Theory of planned behaviour (CDWM). This study aims at developing a framework to assess the effectiveness of CDWM. The proposed con-
ceptual framework includes three main categories, namely CDWM contributing factors, CDWM hierarchy, and
effective CDWM. CDWM contributing factors consist of four main categories, namely CDWM stakeholders’ atti-
tudes, CDWM from sustainability point of view, CDWM tools, and CDW project life cycle. In developing this
framework, and in addition to the contributing factors, supportive theories have been applied for the purpose of
justification. Based on a systematic research method, 214 research documents were revealed initially and after
refining process, 32 relevant research documents were unveiled and then thoroughly considered. It was revealed
that sustainability concept is the main foundation of CDWM. Accordingly, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
was identified as a fundamental pillar that supports stakeholders’ attitudes in effective CDWM assessment.

CDW based on their suitability and possibility for reusing, recovering and
recycling (Yeheyis et al., 2013).
1. Introduction
To shed light on the quantity of engendered CDW, it is worth
considering the most recent available data on the quantity of generated
Shen et al. (2004) defined construction and demolition waste (CDW)
CDW worldwide. For instance, over 2300 MT (million tonnes) of CDW is
as “generated debris in buildings, concrete, steel, wood, rubble, earth,
produced in China annually (Yazdani et al., 2021) made China the
and a composition of materials generated from various activities in
highest CDW producer worldwide. Meanwhile, the United States pro-
construction sites including land excavation, construction of structures
duces over 700 MT of CDW and the European Union is responsible for
and buildings, clearance of construction site, activities relating to de-
generating over 800 MT of CDW annually (Wu et al., 2019b). Con-
molition, roadwork and renovation of buildings”. CDW was explained by
struction industry is also responsible for about 23% of landfilling in Hong
Poon and Chan (2007) as an assortment of inert/non-inert materials, e.g.,
Kong (Yu et al., 2013), 27% in Canada (Yeheyis et al., 2013), 29% in the
concrete, rocks, and soil are categorized as inert materials, whereas
United States, 40% in Brazil, 44% in Australia, and 44% in the United
wood, glass, and plastic are categorized as non-inert materials (Yuan
Kingdom (Ajayi et al., 2016) and an average of 35% globally (Sol-
et al., 2013). CDW is also explained as a congealed waste engendered
ís-Guzm
an et al., 2009). CDW should be effectively managed, otherwise
during renovation, construction, and demolition processes (Yuan and
indispensably produced CDW can have adverse social, economic, and
Shen, 2011). One of the most recent definitions of CDW was presented by
environmental impacts.
Menegaki and Damigos (2018) as a compound of different materials
Related literature indicates that CDWM could bring environmental
comprising hazardous/non-hazardous, and inert/non-inert materials as
advantages, as well as socioeconomic benefits for both construction
well as materials that are unintentionally generated by natural hazards
projects and associated stakeholders (Wang et al., 2019). CDWM in an
like tsunamis, hurricane and earthquake. Other researchers classified

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kamyar.kabirifar@unsw.edu.au (K. Kabirifar), m.mojtahedi@unsw.edu.au (M. Mojtahedi), cynthia.wang@unsw.edu.au (C. Changxin Wang), v.
tam@westernsydney.edu.au (T. Vivian W.Y.).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2020.100019
Received 15 October 2020; Received in revised form 23 November 2020; Accepted 24 November 2020
2666-7908/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
K. Kabirifar et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 1 (2020) 100019

2. Contributing factors to construction and demolition waste

Nomenclature: management

C&D construction and demolition CDW has gained extensive attention from researchers and CDW
CDW construction and demolition waste practitioners around the globe in addressing environmental and socio-
CDWM construction and demolition waste management economic associated problems (Kabirifar et al., 2020), nonetheless it
MT million tonnes has been confirmed that construction industry is still vulnerable to help
IMW integrated waste management alleviating the environmental and socio-economic burdens and its per-
WMH waste management hierarchy formance is far from optimum (Bai et al., 2016). To tackle this problem,
SWM sustainable waste management outstanding efforts have been carried out to minimize CDW generation
SD sustainable development (Yuan, 2012), however without considering effective CDWM mechanism,
SM sustainability management deficiencies associated with CDWM cannot be treated. Consequently, it is
TPB Theory of Planned Behaviour crucial to consider effective management of CDW and its main compo-
TRA Theory of Reasoned Action nents through reviewing related frameworks.
BIM building information modelling One of the most acceptable and widely applicable approaches to
GPS global positioning system manage CDW is fulfilled by 3Rs principle including reduce, reuse, and
GIS geographic information system recycle approaches, also known as CDWM hierarchy (Peng et al., 1997).
RFID radio frequency identification Reduce is the most effective and optimal approach for CDWM as it has the
BD big data lowest environmental impacts, thus, reduce is considered as the most
IBS industrialised building system favourable approach and first preference in CDWM (Huang et al., 2018).
CE circular economy Subsequently, reuse strategy, which is defined as the process of using
engendered materials by C&D tasks for their original purposes or to
satisfy a new function, is considered as the second priority (Huang et al.,
2018). Finally, recycle strategy, which is defined as the process of using
broken down engendered materials by C&D activities to make new ma-
terials, is the last priority in CDWM. Although some researchers have
effective manner is also regarded as essential to gaining different landfill considered other strategies such as incineration, it has been proven that
space conservation, job creation, project expense reduction, etc (Wu due to the limited applicability of these strategies to CDW (e.g., wood is
et al., 2017). Evaluating CDWM effectiveness is the main and crucial the main CDW material appropriate for incineration), they are not widely
aspect of CDWM performance assessment (Wu et al., 2019a). Conse- acceptable for CDWM (Ximenes et al., 2018).
quently, CDW needs to be effectively managed. Several studies have One of the most versatile frameworks in CDWM studies was estab-
considered CDWM performance from several perspectives (Wu et al., lished by Lu and Yuan (2011). This framework studied CDWM bound-
2019a). For instance, some studies have observed CDWM performance aries and came up with amounts of CDW, origins of CDW, impacts of
from sustainability viewpoint including environmental impacts, eco- CDW, regulatory environment for CDWM, performance measurement of
nomic impacts, and social impacts (Marzouk and Azab, 2014), while CDWM, humans in CDWM, tools assisting in CDWM, and CDW minimi-
other studies have considered the effect of project life cycle, stakeholders zation, reduce, reuse, and recycling as components of CDWM (Lu and
decision, tools and technologies, etc on CDWM performance (Esa et al., Yuan, 2011). Some other main components of CDW including CDWM
2017b). However, there is a lack of study considering major components hierarchy, CDW martial life cycle, and construction project life cycle
affecting CDWM performance. Thus, considering a potent concept were also considered in the framework. This framework has played a
capable of analyzing CDWM effectively is essential. Toward fulfilling the critical role as a benchmark for CDW studies by considering a thorough
aim of this research, which is to establish a potent conceptual framework framework based on brainstorming. Although a versatile coverage of
capable of analyzing effective CDWM, first, contributing components to CDWM topics and studies are considered in this study, it is necessary to
effective management of CDW should be identified. Subsequently, these classify associated components to effective CDWM in a broader way.
components should be arranged in a logical way justifiable by supportive Yuan and Shen (2011) appraised 3Rs principle for CDWM before land-
theories to form the proposed conceptual framework. filling. In the proposed framework, some factors affecting CDWM
By developing this conceptual framework, a foundation for effec- including CDW generation, reduction, reuse, and recycling approaches,
tiveness assessment of CDWM studies is built. Academics will benefit CDW from general perspective, and human factors in CDWM were
from the current research as it considers components affecting effective studied, however, this classification lacks in addressing organized clas-
CDWM as well as relevant supportive theories in the domain of CDWM. It sification for contributing components to effective CDWM. Saez et al.
gives researchers the opportunity to adopt these components and the- (2013) developed a framework to assess the effectiveness of CDWM.
ories in their future research to develop CDW effectiveness in their case Results from this study indicated that suppliers play an impressive role in
studies. CDWM professionals are also familiarized with the contributing CDWM. Industrialised building systems as well as appropriate distribu-
components to effective CDWM and can adopt these components to their tion of waste containers in the construction sites can also significantly
organizations for the purpose of CDW minimization. According to the reduce CDW, however in this study, less attention has been given to the
aim of this research, the following research questions should be major contributors to effective CDWM in a specified classification. Yuan
addressed. (2013) developed a framework based on key indicators capable of
RQ1. What is a proposed conceptual framework appropriate for analyzing effective CDWM. The pivotal emphasis of this study was on
assessing the effectiveness of CDWM? and. CDWM assessment from sustainability viewpoint by considering envi-
RQ2. Which theory(ies) can support and justify the concept of effec- ronmental, economic, and social issues of CDWM without considering
tive management of CDW research? other effective factors.
To answer the research questions, the following section (Section 2) Similarly, several other research frameworks for effectiveness
discusses contributing factors to effective CDWM. Then, research meth- assessment of CDWM have been developed in different regions. For
odology is discussed in Section 3. Section 4 is discussion in which sup- instance, a framework for CDWM performance assessment was estab-
portive theories for the proposed framework as well as conceptual lished by Couto and Couto (2010) in Portugal, in which impacts of
formulation and hypotheses development are discussed in detail. Lastly, project phases and project stakeholders on CDWM performance were
Section 5 concludes the study. studied. Yeheyis et al. (2013) elaborated a framework for CDWM

2
K. Kabirifar et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 1 (2020) 100019

Table 1
Factors contribute to effective construction and demolition waste management.
Category Sub-categories

1. Construction and demolition waste stakeholders
2. Construction and demolition waste project life cycle
3. Regulations with respect to sustainable construction and
demolition waste management
4. Construction and demolition waste management tools
1.1 Lack of perception among construction and demolition stakeholders including clients, architects, contractors, and
sub-contractors (Murtagh et al., 2016)
1.2 Emphasis on the role of clients as the main stakeholder in construction and demolition waste management (Arif
et al., 2012).
1.3 Client’s inappropriate attitude towards construction and demolition waste management by prioritizing profit
instead of waste (Lu et al., 2015).
1.4 Role of contractors and sub-contractors in construction and demolition waste minimization (Li et al., 2018).
1.5 Inadequate training and poor workmanship result in construction and demolition waste production (Udawatta et al.,
2015).
2.1 Extra attention should be given to the planning and design stage to reduce construction and demolition waste
management. For instance, communication and coordination between designers and allocate proper auditing time can
significantly reduce construction and demolition waste. Also, variation minimization, detailed specification, and waste
estimation before project initiation are prominent in construction and demolition waste management during planning
and design stage (Ding et al., 2018)
2.2 Supply chain management plays a critical role in construction and demolition waste management (Dainty Andrew
and Brooke Richard, 2004).
2.3 Procurement plays a critical function in construction and demolition waste minimization. For instance, accurate
quantification of material, accurate ordering, and appropriate methods for handling materials play an imperative role in
construction and demolition waste minimization (Esa et al., 2017b).
2.4 Proper application of construction and demolition waste plan, accurate monitoring of construction activities,
application of on-site and off-site sorting approaches, having plan for demolition activities, skilled workforce, proper
methods and machineries for construction and demolition techniques, measuring input and output of materials of each
section in construction phase, rework minimization, proper allocation of waste containers in the construction site,
reusing materials on-site, and enough storage in construction site as well as efficient logistic in construction site can
reduce construction and demolition waste in construction and demolition phase (Kabirifar et al., 2020).
3.1 Preserving natural resources without engendering life for future generations, cutting down on greenhouse gas
emissions, reduction in landfilled waste, preventing soil from degradation and pollution, preventing air and water from
pollution, governmental policies, and concerns with global warming, are factors addressing construction and
demolition waste management from environmental viewpoint (Jain et al., 2020).
3.2 Costs associated with material usage, costs imposed to construction and demolition waste practitioners including tax
on landfilling, disposal costs, loss of productivity, overhead costs, transportation costs, reuse and recycling cost are
factors affecting construction and demolition waste management from economic perspective (Marzouk and Azab,
2014).
3.3 Health and safety issues associated with recycling of materials from collection to transportation and recycling,
construction and demolition waste stakeholders’ decisions and attitudes, public view and awareness towards
construction and demolition waste management, incentives for behavioural change in demolish workforce, and social
concerns with illegal dumping are factors affecting construction and demolition waste management (Wahi et al., 2016).
4.1 The role of information technology (IT) in construction and demolition waste management including building
information modelling (BIM), radio frequency identification (RFID), global positioning system (GPS), geographic
information system (GIS), and Big Data (Kabirifar et al., 2020).
4.2 Approaches to construction and demolition waste management including lean principle, circular economy (CE),
Zero Waste approach, Green Rating System, and plan for site waste management (Esa et al., 2017a).
4.3 Construction and demolition waste management technologies including prefabrication and modularization (Won
and Cheng, 2017).

decision support tool in Canada based on life cycle analysis approach, in
which CDW project life cycle and CDWM hierarchy played a vital role.
Policies, design specification, material management, construction prac-
tice, and selective demolition were also main criteria, however, other
critical components in CDWM such as stakeholders, and tools and tech-
niques were not addressed in this study. Another framework was devel-
oped by Calvo et al. (2014) for CDWM in Spain. In this study the role of
tax penalties and incentives to alter CDW stakeholders’ behaviour were
considered prominent. Similarly, a framework for post-disaster CDWM in
Sri Lanka (Karunasena and Amaratunga, 2016) and a framework for
environmental management practices of CDWM in Europe
(G
alvez-Martos et al., 2018) were developed, however both studies
lacked a systematic and broad classification of contributing components
to effective CDWM. Ajayi et al. (2015) elaborated a framework for
effective CDWM in the United Kingdom. In this study, a framework for
CDWM strategies was developed, in which plan for site waste manage-
ment, waste tools, tax and legislative measures, waste efficient procure-
ment, flexibility and deconstruction, offsite construction, materials reuse
and recovery, and sorting and recycling as contributing components to
effective CDWM were considered. Disrupting factors to effective CDWM
implementation were also explored. However, there was not a broad
classification for effective CDWM contributing components. Esa et al.
(2017a) also elaborated a framework for broadly review CDWM practices
in Malaysia. In the developed framework, C&D project life cycle, stake-
holders, and CDWM strategies were considered regarding micro, meso,
and macro level. However, this study also lacks in a specific classification
of factors affecting CDWM. Several other researchers have also focused
on different aspects of CDWM, such as information technology tools (e.g.,
Building Information Modelling (BIM), approaches (e.g., Circular Econ-
omy), and technologies (e.g., prefabrication) (Esa et al., 2017b). Table 1
summarizes factors contribute to effective CDWM. These factors are
classified into four certain groups.
Current study is along with the research carried out by Kabirifar et al.
(2020) in considering certain classification for contributing components
to CDWM. As Table 1 exhibits, contributing components to effective
CDWM can be categorized into four main groups, namely CDWM from
sustainability standpoint, CDW stakeholders’ attitudes, CDWM tools, and
CDW project life cycle. In addition, the most widely applied CDWM hi-
erarchy encompassing reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies (Huang et al.,
2018) also affect effective management of CDW. Fig. 1 presents
contributing factors to effective CDWM.
In order to develop the proposed conceptual framework for this study,
the next step is to investigate the way through which these factors can be
arranged in a logical way making the proposed framework capable of
analyzing effective management of CDW. The proposed conceptual
framework should also be supported by the application of supportive

3
K. Kabirifar et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 1 (2020) 100019

theories. Thus, there is great need to identify the most applicable theories
supporting contributing factors to effective management of CDW. These
theories do not only support the factors, but also forms the basis of
conceptual framework. To identify the most applicable theories pertinent
to construction and demolition waste management, a potent method of
research is utilized which is discussed in the next section.
3. Research methodology
This study adopts a two-stage strategy in identifying the most perti-
nent research articles to CDWM theories. These strategies include: 1.
selection of databases; and 2. Searching and selecting the sample. The
proposed research methodology is presented in Fig. 2.
commercial waste, nuclear waste, etc), and irrelevant studies (e.g.,
studies addressing materials in CDWM (e.g., theories related to recycled
concrete)) were removed from further analysis. Finally, 32 research
documents left for further analysis in which sustainability concept was
the primary research objective. Table 2 and Figs. 3–6 summarize the
results.
Fig. 3 illustrates the number of published articles on CDWM theories
based on countries. China, Australia, and Hong Kong were the top three
countries in this research area as their names revealed 25, 10, and 5 times
based on authors’ affiliation. Fig. 4 shows published articles on CDWM
theories categorized by publication source. As it can be seen, Journal of
Cleaner Production with 8 articles, Waste Management journal with 5
articles, and International Journal Of Environmental Research And

3.1. Database selection

To track research articles, different database sources and search en-

gines such as Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar could
be exploited. A study carried out by Falagas et al. (2008) stated that
Scopus database is the most preferred database among other databases,
however (Wang and Waltman, 2016) conducted a research on database
selection and came up with Web of Science as the most comprehensive
database compared to others. This study utilizes both Scopus and Web of
Science databases and Google Scholar as search engines.

3.2. Sample searching, refining, and selection

In this step, the most relevant theories related to the current research
domain are recommended to answer the research questions. By consid-
ering “construction waste management theories” and “construction and
demolition theories” as the keywords for searching among research paper
titles, abstracts, and keywords (including research articles and review
papers) ranging all years (up to October 2020) and also, with the help of
Google search engines, 214 research documents were initially identified.
It is worth considering that although keyword searching is a prevalent
and preferred method to retrieve relevant articles to the research topic
(Gross et al., 2015), it should be utilized by researchers dominant to the
research topic cautiously and with respect to the controlled vocabulary
(Gross et al., 2015), otherwise it leads to the loss of relevant articles
(Penning de Vries et al., 2020).
In the second step, selected papers were initially analysed through
title and abstract reading to discern their suitability to fulfill the research
aim of this study. Initially, irrelevant research documents, including
other types of wastes (e.g., food waste, solid waste, municipal/industrial/ Fig. 2. Research methodology.

Fig. 1. Contributing factors to effective management of construction and demolition waste and construction and demolition waste management hierarchy (the most
effective way to manage construction and demolition waste).

4
K. Kabirifar et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 1 (2020) 100019

Table 2
The most relevant theories to construction and demolition waste management.
Theory Application

1. Theory of planned behaviour-12 articles
2. Game theory and Evolutionary game
theory-8 articles
3. Fuzzy set theory-2 articles
4. Grey system theory-2 articles
5. System dynamics theory-2 articles
6. Stakeholder theory-1 article
7. Incentive theory-1 article
8. Herd theory-1 article
9. Task-contextual theory-1 article
10. Implementation theory-1 article
11. Emergy theory-1 article
1. Identifying factors affecting CDW reduction behaviour of construction workers with the aim of system dynamics (Yang et al., 2020).
2. Analyzing builder’s attitudes with respect to the recycling approach of CDW in India (Jain et al., 2020).
3. Identifying factors contribute to CDW recycling behaviour of stakeholders in Hong Kong (Mak et al., 2019).
4. Identifying factors stimulating project managers’ behaviour with respect to CDW reduction (Yuan et al., 2018).
5. Exploring effective contributing factors to CDW reduction behaviour of CDW contractors (Li et al., 2018).
6. Exploring effective contributing factors to CDW reduction behaviour of contractors in China (Wu et al., 2017).
7. Analyzing factors that affect willingness of CDW workers’ reduction behaviour (Liu et al., 2017)
8. Exploring factors affecting CDW reduction in the construction phase with respect to environmental advantages in China (Ding et al.,
2016b).
9. Examining factors affecting CDW reduction in the design stage with respect to designers’ role in China (Li et al., 2015)
10. Developing a support tool for CDW reduction with the aim of system dynamics (Yuan et al., 2012).
11. Investigating how contractors’ behaviour affect CDW reduction, reuse, and recycling in Malaysia (Begum et al., 2009).
12. Investigating attitudinal factors affecting CDW stakeholders’ behaviour (Teo and Loosemore, 2001).
1. Investigating the decision-making process among stakeholders involved in CDW recycling (Su, 2020).
2. Analyzing the behavioural symbiotic evolution of CDW stakeholders including recyclers and construction firms with or without
incentives from governments (Ma and Zhang, 2020).
3. Investigating the integration of the government’s mechanism of incentive-penalty and green development performance on process of
decision-making of recycling entities (Long et al., 2020)
4. Investigating the decision-making pertaining to behaviour of CDW stakeholders involved in CDWM (Du et al., 2020).
5. Investigating the profit gained by CDW recycling unit with respect to CDW stakeholders including CDW recycler and producer (Liu, J.
et al., 2020b).
6. Supply chain material development for CDW reuse and recycling with respect to CDW stakeholders (Li et al., 2019).
7. Clarifying the behavioural decision-making process of CDW stakeholders (Chen et al., 2019).
8. Investigating CDW stakeholders’ behavioural decision-making process with respect to environmental regulations (Shen et al., 2018).
1. Estimating CDW generation (Mau
es et al., 2020)
2. Evaluation methods applied for environmental treatment of CDW (Kong and Ma, 2020).
1. Estimating produced waste through renovation activities in China (Ding et al., 2019).
2. Illegally dumped waste reduction with aim of System dynamics (Jia et al., 2018).
1. Investigation design and construction phases of CDW for overall CDW reduction in China (Ding et al., 2018)
2. Exploring and examining CDW generation, transportation, recycling and landfilling as well as illegal dumping in projects in China
(Tam et al., 2014)
Analyzing critical factors contributing to the recycling of CDW in China with aim of Grey-DEMATEL method (Liu, H. et al., 2020a).
Promoting market for CDW recycled material (Hu et al., 2019).
Exploration of how attitude alteration in CDW stakeholders influence CDW (Ding et al., 2016a).
Exploring the role of designers in CDW minimization (Ajayi et al., 2016).
Effective evaluation of construction Waste Management Plan in the UK (Shiers et al., 2014).
Analyzing economic aspect of CDW with respect to comparisons between traditional and new approaches to CDW recycling (Yuan et al.,
2011).

Public Health along with Resources, Conservation and Recycling journal
with 3 articles, were the top four sources of publication. Fig. 5 represents
top ten published articles on CDWM theories based on researchers’
affiliation. Shenzhen University with 8 times, and Western Sydney Uni-
versity with 5 times were the top affiliations among other universities.
This was followed by Hong Kong Polytechnic University, The University
of Adelaide, Southwest Jiaotong University, and Guangzhou University
with 4 affiliations each. Finally, Fig. 6 shows top fourteen authors in this
field. Ding, Z., Yuan, H., and Zou, J. were the top three authors in this
research area with 4 published articles each.
Regarding Table 2, although several theories in the research domain
of CDWM were unveiled, considering the contributing factors to effective
CDWM, the theory of planned behaviour is the most applicable theory
with regard to CDW stakeholders’ attitudes. The theory of planned
behaviour supports decision making process of stakeholders involved in
CDWM in the general form rather than decision making based on specific
problems under mathematical formulations and simulations (e.g., game
theory, fuzzy set theory, grey system theory, etc). According to the aim of
this study, one fundamental concept, namely sustainability concept
(notion) and one fundamental theory, namely theory of planned behav-
iour are considered to support the proposed conceptual framework. It is
worth mentioning that sustainability concept supports CDWM from
sustainability standpoint theoretically, and the theory of planned
behaviour supports CDW stakeholders’ attitudes theoretically. As dis-
cussed earlier, CDWM from sustainability standpoint and CDW stake-
holders’ attitudes are two factors that contribute to effective
management of CDW.
4. Discussions
4.1. Construction and demolition waste management and sustainability
concept
In the last few years, the concept of sustainability has been directed
by various emerging schools of thought and non-conventional theories
such as biomimicry (Gamage and Hyde, 2012), green economy (J€anicke,
2012), circular economy (Pomponi and Moncaster, 2017), industrial
ecology (Husgafvel et al., 2015), transition economy (Kemp and Loor-
bach, 2003), systemic economy (Sala et al., 2015), regenerative economy
(Goodland, 1995), and blue economy and ecological clustering (Pauli,
2010). The use of sustainability concept in the aforementioned notions is
mainly based on manufacturing, business, marketing and other industries
(Scheel, 2016), however, main focus of this study is the concept of sus-
tainability in the construction industry, peculiarly CDWM.
Sustainability concept has definitely been one of the most principal,
vigorous and fundamental concepts to analyse CDWM (del Río Merino
et al., 2009). Subsequently, sustainability concept is considered as the
foundation of CDWM (Bossink and Brouwers, 1996). Additionally, to
effectively manage CDW, one is significantly required to pay attention to
the constitution of this concept. Moreover, sustainable construction is a
critical approach, which is used by the construction industry for
responding to the sustainable development needs (Ortiz et al., 2009).
Sustainable construction is to generate a healthy and sustainable envi-
ronment (Hill and Bowen, 1997) to ensure that infrastructures and
buildings would carry a favourable effect on natural systems in a

5
K. Kabirifar et al.
Fig. 3. Published articles based on country (based on authors’ affiliation).
Fig. 4. Top 5 journals (more than one article).
balanced economic, environmental, and social perception. For instance,
while construction activities produce a few economic profits, it has
serious social and environmental effects on the community as well
(Kabirifar et al., 2020). Consequently, in the construction industry, sus-
tainability has progressively been adopted to promote sustainable efforts
with an overall object of balancing in environmental, economic and so-
cial effects within construction activities (Chong et al., 2009).
“Sustainability” was initially ascertained by the International Union
for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) in 1980
(Saenger et al., 1983). “Brundtland Report” provided by the United Na-
tions Commission on Environment and Development (1987) identified
sustainable development to provide the current needs without jeopard-
izing the capability of next generations to fulfil their own needs
(Brundtland, 1987). In another word, based on WCED,1 sustainable
development is a development, in which basic public requirements are
fulfilled, and desire for a decent life is publicly satisfied without jeop-
ardizing next generations’ capability (Brundtland, 1987). Sustainable
development has emphasized on the essence of co-development of triple
bottom lines comprising social, economic and environment (Bai et al.,
2016). Few definitions, perceptions and explanations have also been
applied by individuals, organizations and societies (Starik and Kanashiro,
2013), and few studies are to coalesce, particularly over long-term
quality of socio-economic and environmental aspects of life (Starik and
Rands, 1995). Accordingly, sustainable development would rapidly
become the main principle, underpinning official environmental policy
at international and national levels (Koroneos and Rokos, 2012). Later,
sustainability revolution occurred in 1990 when the individual, organi-
zational, and societal movements into developing potential for socio-
economic and environmental long-term life-quality was led by scholars
and practitioners to generate the concept of a sustainable world with
1 2
World Commission on Environment and Development.
6
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 1 (2020) 100019
adequate resource accessibility for its habitats (Starik and Kanashiro,
2013). A formal endorsement for sustainable development was generated
by ‘Earth Summit’ including more than 150 nationals in 1992, plus a
broad particular and general policy initiatives under the sustainable
development heading as Agenda 21 in Brazil2 (Grubb et al., 2019).
Looking for a good waste management, proper terms are applied by
waste management scholars such as integrated waste management
(IWM), waste management hierarchy (WMH), sustainable waste man-
agement (SWM), etc (Chung and Lo, 2003). According to the principles of
sustainable development (Development, 1993), (Tammemagi, 1999)
defined the objectives of SWM as protecting environment and health
while reducing the burden of next generations and conserving resources.
In this case, SWM is referred to as “the application of integrated life cycle
management concept in waste management” (Grubb et al., 2019). SWM
was later changed to the waste management hierarchy (3Rs) (Scheel,
2016) as the first priority of CDWM (Yuan, 2013). In another word, the
program areas within SWM have later evolved within the waste man-
agement hierarchy with its recent excessive application considered the
foremost and substantial strategy for CDWM (Huang et al., 2018). This
hierarchy could provide a preference to avoid, reduce, reuse, recycle,
compost - waste to energy transformation- and safely dispose off waste
(Grubb et al., 2019). However, 3Rs principle including reducing, reusing,
and recycling strategies have widely been used in CDWM (Huang et al.,
2018). Considering this hierarchy, produced waste is required to be
recovered based on its properness for the processes of reducing, reusing,
and recycling earlier than waste disposal into landfills, which is the final
stage (Li and Du, 2015). The mentioned processes (reduction, reuse, and
recycling strategies) could assist in attaining a closed loop of material
flow with a successful result in CDW minimization (Huang et al., 2018).
Considering the adaptation of the ecological perception of Bronfen-
brenner in sustainable construction domain (Bronfenbrenner and Morris,
2007), five influence levels on development of human and, eventually,
human behaviour are identified. The broadest level is Macro including
global and national economy and culture. Subsequently, Exo level in-
cludes organizations, markets, regulations, and other social centres. Af-
terwards, Meso level could be explained as association amidst
organizations through a network of supply chain such as networks of
supplier, business networks, and networks of clients. Next, Micro level
includes person-to-person effects in a regular manner, suppliers, clients,
and employees. In the end, there is an Individual layer, in which psy-
chological factors with personal motivations and norms affect behaviour
(Murtagh et al., 2016).
Wood Donna and Jones Raymond (1995) grouped sustainability
management (SM) into three levels of potential SM as macro or societal,
meso or organizational, and micro or individual SM. They believed that
defining at least one macro level, one meso level, and one micro-level has
shown the point that sustainability could be understood as a multiscale
concept. Also, long-term life-quality boost could occur not only at these
levels, but also among them (Starik and Kanashiro, 2013). As a result,
global sustainability issues affect organizations and should be crucial to
all the organization types and individuals in its subsequent steps. To be
survived in long-term and uncertain environment and to attain a global
sustainability, organizations should satisfy various expectations of
stakeholders (individuals) who are able in wreaking unacceptable
destruction on the viability of organization if no interest is met (Wreder
et al., 2009). Therefore, for considering effective CDWM plan, individual
level, organizational level, and societal level should be proportionally
cared, however, this research targets organizational level, first because
organizations are bigger scale of individuals and they reflect individuals’
point of view. Second, organizations are easy to approach within a
structured manner, and last but foremost, it is more logical and practical
to assess organization’s performance concerning CDWM rather than in-
dividual or national’s performance.
UN conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).
K. Kabirifar et al.
Fig. 5. Top 10 affiliations (more than one affiliation).
Fig. 6. Top 14 authors (Authors with more than one article).
4.2. The role of stakeholders’ attitudes in construction and demolition
waste management
Freeman (1999) provided a common definition, in which stake-
holders are singulars and groups who could impact or be impacted by
actions associated with value creation and trade. Wood et al. (2018)
narrow downs “stakeholders” as groups and individuals who depend on
the organization to gain their personal objectives and on whom the or-
ganization depends for steadiness and consistency. The significance of
managing stakeholders in dealing with CDW has increased. Reed (2008)
reported that successful waste management strategies necessitate the
significant involvement of all stakeholders.
There are various key parameters in the construction projects such as
costs, machineries, materials, manpower (human being) and etc., how-
ever, human beings, who take part in direct construction tasks is the most
significant element due to their ability in connecting all other resources
together for attaining ultimate project goals (Zeng et al., 2015). Con-
cerning this concept, it is emphasized that considering human factors in
CDWM during infrastructures’ improvement and waste processing tech-
nology is essential (Lingard and Rowlinson, 1997).
Yuan and Shen (2011) proposed that the best resolution for CDWM is
based on practitioners than waste materials. Stakeholders’ role in CDWM
is reflected by their attitudes regarding CDWM (Teo et al., 2000).
Consequently, there is a great need to consider stakeholders’ attitudes in
7
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 1 (2020) 100019
developing a framework for effective CDWM assessment. Stakeholders
have various interests within the system, with diverse influences,
whether negative or positive, when the system is responding to their
attentiveness. Management of stakeholders is related to how stake-
holders are considered, defined, grouped, and managed (Steurer et al.,
2005) while addressing different attitudes of participants, advance their
communication and clarify their needs (Freeman et al., 2010). Stake-
holders have also a close bilateral relationship with organizations
(Freeman, 1999).
Accordingly, CDW could be efficiently managed through changing
attitudes than altering techniques (Wong and Yip, 2004). In other words,
attitudes have represented the evaluation of people from objects or cir-
cumstances exposed to them to behave in a specific way (Ajzen, 1985). It
is widely accepted that an attitude has four dimensions encompassing
evaluative (values/likes or dislikes), cognitive (knowledge/beliefs),
behavioural (intentions/actions), and affective (feelings/emotions)
(Shertzer et al., 2005). However, attitude is closely related to the
behaviour in the context of CDWM research (Teo and Loosemore, 2001).
Typically, attitudes are formed based on the positive or negative evalu-
ation of consequences extracted from an exhibited behaviour and per-
sonal beliefs about those consequence (Teo and Loosemore, 2001).
Attitudes are formed because attitudes perform priority and structure to a
complex world while clarifying and providing consistency in the in-
dividual’s description of situations and objects (Olson and Zanna, 1993).
K. Kabirifar et al.
Attitudes are used to express the guiding values and self-identity of in-
dividuals. Also, attitudes are essential to managers since they master-
mind behaviour of people in response to stimulus while providing views
into the proper motivating mechanism(s). According to studies, attitudes
are best deduced from the actions or words of people, which provide
insights into their psychological orientation towards a situation or object
(Ostrom, 1989). In the next sub-section, theory of planned behaviour is
discussed as the most applicable theory to support stakeholders’ attitudes
in CDWM research.
4.2.1. Construction and demolition waste management and theory of
planned behaviour
The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) developed by Ajzen (1985)
was derived from the theory of reasoned action (TRA). According to TRA,
behaviour is managed by intention which is affected by subjective norms
and attitudes (Bagozzi, 1992). The TPB is a commonly applied and
impressive theoretical method for the attitude-behaviour relationship
(Davies et al., 2002). Based on the TPB, to perform a given behaviour,
intentions play a crucial role because they capture the motivational pa-
rameters that affect behaviour. Also, social structure, social context and
habits cannot be discarded because these parameters directly affect the
individual preferences (Udawatta et al., 2015). Social psychologists have
typically agreed that values, beliefs and attitudes of people affect their
behaviour (Crocker and Lehmann, 2013). Accordingly, (Chapman et al.,
2013) have also indicated that individual values, motivations, and de-
cisions affect the behaviour of people.
In general, attitude is considered as a negative or positive feeling
toward particular objects while affecting behaviour. Unconsciously or
consciously, behavioural decisions are occasionally based on attitudes
(Begum et al., 2009). The TPB claims that an individual’s behaviour is
obtained from the perceived behavioural intentions and behavioural
control. Thereafter, behavioural intention is the function of three de-
terminants, namely 1) perceived behavioural control, e.g., perceived own
capability to successfully exhibit behaviour, 2) attitude of individuals
towards behaviour e.g., favourite or unfavourite evaluating of behaviour,
and 3) subjective norm e.g., the perception of other relevant expectations
(Ajzen, 1985). On the other hand, the intention of individuals is affected
by the opinions of other people (Bamberg, 2003), mainly if someone is
from a specified organization, then the objectives and philosophy of that
organization will significantly affect their intention (Bortoleto et al.,
2012). The main supposition with respect to the TPB is that the more
intention is, the more likely a peculiar behaviour will be carried out. Even
if people might have positive intentions, they cannot comply with them,
unless they get through to this belief that they could own overall control
of the behavioural performance (Davies et al., 2002).
Many scholars have considered human factors’ relationship with
CDWM (Wu et al., 2017). For instance, the significance of human factors
in waste reduction was highlighted and debated that it could be ceased
by attitudes alteration (Poon et al., 2001). Herremans and Allwright
David (2000) exhibited that attitude and awareness lead to performance
(behaviour) and action in terms of environmental management affairs.
Teo et al. (2000) reported that the labour-intensive nature of construc-
tion activities means that behavioural hindrances are likely to tremen-
dously affect levels of waste. Lingard et al. (2000) also mentioned that
the degree of attained reducing, reusing, and recycling of CDW could
highly depend on the motivational effects of construction workers’
behaviour. For instance, according to a study performed in a contracting
organization in Australia, it was revealed that management has low
affirmative attitudes to waste reduction compared to construction
workers in construction organizations. The management of time, cost and
quality objectives (Kabirifar and Mojtahedi, 2019) are crucial than the
potential environmental issues (Lingard et al., 2000).
On the other hand, it was revealed that attitudes toward waste mini-
mization are one of the problems in the area of construction waste man-
agement (Teo et al., 2000). Teo and Loosemore (2001) utilized Ajzen’s
theory of planned behaviour to study the attitudinal strengths that form
8
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 1 (2020) 100019
behaviours in construction phase. It was revealed that waste was consid-
ered as an unavoidable consequence of construction activities from on-site
construction workers’ perspective when their attitudes were driven by
pragmatism. It was also proved that majority of waste generation could be
stopped by solely altering the construction workers’ attitudes because of
their direct or indirect relationship with waste generation causes (Kula-
tunga et al., 2006). Begum et al. (2009) studied the factors affecting the
attitude and contractor’s behaviour toward waste management in
Malaysia. Results indicated that an affirmative attitude towards waste
management could move to a favourable behaviour. Aligned with (Begum
et al., 2009), (Al-Sari et al., 2011) investigated how the behaviour and
attitude of local waste management contractor is affected in Palestinian
territory. Also, a personal norm was observed to be one of the major
predictors in waste prevention behaviour (Bortoleto et al., 2012). Ram-
ayah et al. (2012) extended the theory of planned behaviour by incorpo-
rating environmental knowledge and environmental awareness to
envisage recycling behaviour and (Yuan, 2012) assessed social perfor-
mance of CDWM quantitatively. Li et al. (2015) investigated designers’
attitudes towards construction waste minimization in China by the utili-
zation of the theory of planned behaviour and its components. Sun et al.
(2015) studied waste management practices and opinions of small builders
in the UK and came up with elementary awareness of small builders to-
wards sustainable construction as well as their lack of knowledge and
attitude in this domain. The theory of planned behaviour was considered
in the study of Ding et al. (2016b) as the basics for environmental per-
formance evaluation of CDW. The willingness attitude of construction
workforce in CDW reduction based on the theory of planned behaviour
was considered in another study performed by Liu et al. (2017). Also, the
attitude and behaviour of a contractor towards CDWM were studied in
China (Wu et al., 2017). Construction waste reduction considering con-
tractors and project managers’ behaviour based on the application of the
theory of planned behaviour were also considered in the studies carried
out by Yang et al. (2020).
This study considers the theory of planned behaviour, which targets
the behaviour of individuals on themselves and on organizations as
supportive theory of CDW stakeholders’ attitudes, a parameter in the
body of the proposed conceptual framework, in order to assess the
effectiveness of CDWM. This theory is the most applicable theory to
support stakeholders’ attitudes in CDWM research domain.
4.3. Conceptual framework formulation and hypotheses development
The context of this research is to develop a conceptual framework
capable of analyzing CDWM effectively. As discussed, there are four
factors that contribute to effective CDWM, namely CDW stakeholders’
attitudes, CDW project life cycle, CDWM from sustainability perspective,
and CDWM tools. CDWM hierarchy (including reduce, reuse, and recycle
strategies) is also considered as the most effective way to manage CDW
effectively (Huang et al., 2018). The concomitance and juxtaposition of
the contributing factors to effective management of CDW and CDWM
hierarchy forms the proposed conceptual framework for this research.
Fig. 7 illustrates the proposed conceptual framework for effective man-
agement of CDW.
As Fig. 7 represents, contributing factors to effective CDWM affect
CDWM hierarchy initially, and in the second step, CDWM hierarchy
affect effective CDWM. The reason for this formation (considering
CDWM hierarchy in between and as an intervening factor) is to supply
the proposed conceptual framework with logic and measurement by
fulfilling the following objectives: i) how does contributing factors to
effective CDWM affect effective CDWM? (this should be reflected in the
form of reduction, and/or reuse, and/or recycling of CDW), and ii) which
strategy is more effective? For instance, in case BIM affects CDWM, this
impact is reflected through CDWM hierarchy (which strategy is more
applicable and more effective?)
The proposed conceptual framework is also supported by one theory-
the theory of planned behaviour-which reflects the attitudes of
K. Kabirifar et al.
Fig. 7. Proposed conceptual framework for effective management of construction and demolition waste.
stakeholders involved in CDWM and one concept -sustainability- which
reflects sustainable CDWM. Subsequently, five hypotheses are developed
based on the proposed conceptual framework. Each hypothesis explains
the impact of a factor on another factor. Hypotheses are developed based
on the theoretical framework and they examine whether a theory is valid.
In fact, hypotheses are transitional stage from theoretical framework to
empirical investigation (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016). Hypotheses are
formed based on evident literature, theories, and previous experience of
researchers (Hair et al., 2017). Hypotheses (H1, H2, H3, H4, and H5) are
represented in Fig. 7. Hypotheses H1 to H5 are discussed as follows.
H1: Effect of construction and demolition waste stakeholders’ atti-
tudes on construction and demolition waste management hierarchy.
Based on different typologies to identify stakeholders engaged in
CDWM, there are various classification of stakeholders. Some researchers
have considered a broad classification of stakeholders in CDWM
including designers (architects, engineers, etc.), main contractors, con-
sultants, environmentalists, sub-contractors and material vendors, public
or private clients, C&D recyclers, general public, and regulators (Lu et al.,
2015), however some other scholars have categorized stakeholders into a
more specific classification (e.g., three groups including consultants,
contractors, and clients (Esa et al., 2017b). CDW stakeholders have been
proven to have a significant contribution to CDWM hierarchy including
reduce, reuse and recycle strategies (Lu et al., 2015). For instance, ar-
chitects affect CDWM by their design (Osmani et al., 2008). Also, con-
tractors and sub-contractors affect generation, reduction, reuse, and
recycling of CDW by their attitudes (Saunders and Wynn, 2004). By
drawing hypothesis one (H1), this study considers the effect of CDW
stakeholders’ attitudes on CDWM hierarchy.
H2: Effect of construction and demolition waste management from
sustainability perspective on construction and demolition waste man-
agement hierarchy.
This hypothesis reflects the effect of sustainable CDWM on CDWM
hierarchy including environmental, economic, and social aspect of
CDWM on reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies. These impacts have been
highlighted mostly in the form of assessing the impacts of regulatory
framework (e.g., reward-incentive mechanism, tax on waste disposal and
landfilling, health and safety regulations, etc) on CDWM hierarchy in
terms of waste reduction, reuse, and recycling (Shiers et al., 2014). For
instance, several studies have considered environmental aspect of CDWM
(Kong and Ma, 2020). Socio-economic aspects of CDWM have also been
addressed in several studies (Marrero et al., 2017). By drawing hypoth-
esis two (H2), this study considers the effect of CDWM from sustainability
standpoint on CDWM hierarchy.
H3: Effect of construction and demolition waste management tools on
construction and demolition waste management hierarchy.
As discussed earlier, this study along with the research performed by
Kabirifar et al. (2020) classifies CDWM tools into three main groups,
9
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 1 (2020) 100019
namely i) IT-based tools in CDWM including building information
modelling (BIM), global positioning system (GPS), geographic informa-
tion system (GIS), radio frequency identification (RFID), and big data
(BD), ii) CDWM approaches including lean principle, circular economy,
zero waste management approach, green rating system, and plan for site
waste management, and iii) CDWM technologies including industrialised
building system (IBS) and modularization. Several studies have consid-
ered the impact CDWM tools on CDWM. For instance (Esa et al., 2017b),
have considered Circular Economy (CE) in CDWM. The application of
GPS and GIS technologies for CDW reduction has also been considered by
Li et al. (2005). The application of other CDWM tools such as building
information modelling (BIM), site waste management plan, lean princi-
ple, etc have also been addressed by several studies (Karaz et al., 2021).
By drawing hypothesis three (H3), this study considers the effect of
CDWM tools on CDWM hierarchy.
H4: Effect of construction and demolition waste project life cycle on
construction and demolition waste management hierarchy.
As discussed earlier, different scholars have come up with different
life cycle for CDWM. For instance (Lu and Yuan, 2011), considered
construction life cycle in their research including concept, design, con-
struction, execution, maintenance, and demolition phases, whereas
(Yeheyis et al., 2013), considered pre-construction phase, construction
and renovation phase, and demolition phase in their research. Esa et al.
(2017a) classified CDW life cycle into three main groups, namely plan-
ning and design stage, procurement stage, and construction and demo-
lition stage. CDW project life cycle depends mainly on the research aims,
organizations’ structures and complexity, and population target of the
research. Many studies have addressed the effect of project life cycle on
CDWM. For instance (Osmani et al., 2008), studied the impact of design
phase on CDWM. Similarly, (Esa et al., 2017a) studied the impact of
procurement phase, and construction and demolition phase on CDWM.
By drawing hypothesis four (H4), this study considers the effect of CDW
project life cycle on CDWM hierarchy.
H5: Effect of construction and demolition waste management hier-
archy on effective construction and demolition waste management.
CDWM hierarchy including reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies has
been considered as the most effective way to manage CDW (Kabirifar
et al., 2020). By drawing hypothesis five (H5), this study considers the
impact of CDWM hierarchy on CDWM effectiveness which leads to a
performance assessment of CDW effectiveness based on prioritization of
CDWM hierarchy.
5. Conclusions
This research proposed a conceptual framework for effective CDWM
management. The proposed conceptual framework includes contributing
factors to effective CDWM, CDWM hierarchy, and effective CDWM.
K. Kabirifar et al.
Sustainability notion and the theory of planned behaviour support the
proposed conceptual framework in addition to support received from
literature. This framework can be utilized to assess the effectiveness of
CDWM through empirical investigation. However, this part of research is
ongoing and once the primary data collection procedure is completed,
the effectiveness of CDWM is measured.
It is worth considering that although based on CDWM hierarchy,
reduce, reuse, and recycle approaches are placed in order of preference
from the most favourable strategy to the least favourable strategy, there
is a great need to consider the best solution approach applicable for
effective CDWM with regard to the case studies or organizational con-
ditions within which effective CDWM is assessed. Considering future
research potentials, one aspect is to include CDW (e.g., concrete) in the
proposed conceptual framework which makes the concept more feasible
and comprehensive. By altering the CDWM hierarchy from linear to
circular a more effective mechanism for CDWM can also be developed.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Ajayi, S.O., Oyedele, L.O., Bilal, M., Akinade, O.O., Alaka, H.A., Owolabi, H.A.,
Kadiri, K.O., 2015. Waste effectiveness of the construction industry: understanding
the impediments and requisites for improvements. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 102,
101–112.
Ajayi, S.O., Oyedele, L.O., Akinade, O.O., Bilal, M., Owolabi, H.A., Alaka, H.A.,
Kadiri, K.O., 2016. Reducing waste to landfill: a need for cultural change in the UK
construction industry. J. Build Eng. 5, 185–193.
Ajayi Saheed, O., Oyedele Lukumon, O., Kadiri Kabir, O., Akinade Olugbenga, O.,
Bilal, M., Owolabi Hakeem, A., Alaka Hafiz, A., 2016. Competency-based measures
for designing out construction waste: task and contextual attributes. Eng. Construct.
Architect. Manag. 23 (4), 464–490.
Ajzen, I., 1985. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior, Action
Control. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 11–39.
Al-Sari, M.I., Al-Khatib, I.A., Avraamides, M., Fatta-Kassinos, D., 2011. A study on the
attitudes and behavioural influence of construction waste management in Occupied
Palestinian Territory. Waste Manag. Res. 30 (2), 122–136.
Arif, M., Bendi, D., Toma-Sabbagh, T., Sutrisna, M., 2012. Construction waste
management in India: an exploratory study. Construct. Innovat. 12 (2), 133–155.
Bagozzi, R.P., 1992. The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Soc.
Psychol. Q. 55 (2), 178–204.
Bai, X., Surveyer, A., Elmqvist, T., Gatzweiler, F.W., Güneralp, B., Parnell, S., Prieur-
Richard, A.-H., Shrivastava, P., Siri, J.G., Stafford-Smith, M., Toussaint, J.-P.,
Webb, R., 2016. Defining and advancing a systems approach for sustainable cities.
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 23, 69–78.
Bamberg, S., 2003. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally
related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. J. Environ. Psychol. 23 (1),
21–32.
Begum, R.A., Siwar, C., Pereira, J.J., Jaafar, A.H., 2009. Attitude and behavioral factors in
waste management in the construction industry of Malaysia. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
53 (6), 321–328.
Bortoleto, A.P., Kurisu, K.H., Hanaki, K., 2012. Model development for household waste
prevention behaviour. Waste Manag. 32 (12), 2195–2207.
Bossink, B.A.G., Brouwers, H.J.H., 1996. Construction waste: quantification and source
evaluation. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 122 (1), 55–60.
Bronfenbrenner, U., Morris, P.A., 2007. The Bioecological Model of Human Development,
Handbook of Child Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 793–827.
Brundtland, G.H., 1987. Presentation of the Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development to the Commission of the European Communities, the
EC and EFTA Countries. World Commission on Environment and Development,
Brussels. (Accessed 5 May 1987).
Calvo, N., Varela-Candamio, L., Novo-Corti, I., 2014. A dynamic model for construction
and demolition (C&D) waste management in Spain: driving policies based on
economic incentives and tax penalties. Sustainability 6 (1), 416–435.
Chapman, R.L., Buckley, L., Sheehan, M., Shochet, I., 2013. School-based programs for
increasing connectedness and reducing risk behavior: a systematic review. Educ.
Psychol. Rev. 25 (1), 95–114.
Scheel, C., 2016. Beyond sustainability. Transforming industrial zero-valued residues into
increasing economic returns. J. Clean. Prod. 131, 376–386.
Chen, J., Hua, C., Liu, C., 2019. Considerations for better construction and demolition
waste management: identifying the decision behaviors of contractors and
government departments through a game theory decision-making model. J. Clean.
Prod. 212, 190–199.
10
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 1 (2020) 100019
Chong, W.K., Kumar, S., Haas, C.T., Beheiry, S.M., Coplen, L., Oey, M., 2009.
Understanding and interpreting baseline perceptions of sustainability in construction
among civil engineers in the United States. J. Manag. Eng. 25 (3), 143–154.
Chung, S.-s., Lo, C.W.H., 2003. Evaluating sustainability in waste management: the case
of construction and demolition, chemical and clinical wastes in Hong Kong. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 37 (2), 119–145.
Couto, A., Couto, J.P., 2010. Guidelines to Improve Construction and Demolition Waste
Management in Portugal. IntechOpen, Portugal, pp. 285–306. Process Management.
Crocker, R., Lehmann, S., 2013. Motivating Change: Sustainable Design and Behaviour in
the Built Environment. Routledge, UK.
Dainty Andrew, R.J., Brooke Richard, J., 2004. Towards improved construction waste
minimisation: a need for improved supply chain integration? Struct. Surv. 22 (1),
20–29.
Davies, J., Foxall, G.R., Pallister, J., 2002. Beyond the intention–behaviour mythology: an
integrated model of recycling. Market. Theor. 2 (1), 29–113.
del Río Merino, M., Izquierdo Gracia, P., Weis Azevedo, I.S., 2009. Sustainable
construction: construction and demolition waste reconsidered. Waste Manag. Res. 28
(2), 118–129.
Development, U.N.C.o.E., 1993. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 3–14. June 1992. New York, United Nations.
Ding, Z., Wang, Y., Zou, P.X., 2016a. An agent based environmental impact assessment of
building demolition waste management: conventional versus green management.
J. Clean. Prod. 133, 1136–1153.
Ding, Z., Yi, G., Tam, V.W.Y., Huang, T., 2016b. A system dynamics-based environmental
performance simulation of construction waste reduction management in China.
Waste Manag. 51, 130–141.
Ding, Z., Zhu, M., Tam, V.W.Y., Yi, G., Tran, C.N.N., 2018. A system dynamics-based
environmental benefit assessment model of construction waste reduction
management at the design and construction stages. J. Clean. Prod. 176, 676–692.
Ding, Z., Shi, M., Lu, C., Wu, Z., Chong, D., Gong, W., 2019. Predicting renovation waste
generation based on grey system theory: a case study of Shenzhen. Sustainability 11
(16), 4326.
Du, L., Feng, Y., Lu, W., Kong, L., Yang, Z., 2020. Evolutionary game analysis of
stakeholders’ decision-making behaviours in construction and demolition waste
management. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 84, 106408.
Esa, M.R., Halog, A., Rigamonti, L., 2017a. Developing strategies for managing
construction and demolition wastes in Malaysia based on the concept of circular
economy. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 19 (3), 1144–1154.
Esa, M.R., Halog, A., Rigamonti, L., 2017b. Strategies for minimizing construction and
demolition wastes in Malaysia. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 120, 219–229.
Falagas, M.E., Pitsouni, E.I., Malietzis, G.A., Pappas, G., 2008. Comparison of PubMed,
Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. Faseb. J. 22
(2), 338–342.
Freeman, R.E., 1999. Divergent stakeholder theory. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24 (2), 233–236.
Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L., De Colle, S., 2010. Stakeholder
Theory: the State of the Art. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.
G
alvez-Martos, J.-L., Styles, D., Schoenberger, H., Zeschmar-Lahl, B., 2018. Construction
and demolition waste best management practice in Europe. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
136, 166–178.
Gamage, A., Hyde, R., 2012. A model based on Biomimicry to enhance ecologically
sustainable design. Architect. Sci. Rev. 55 (3), 224–235.
Goodland, R., 1995. The concept OF environmental sustainability. Annu. Rev. Ecol.
Systemat. 26 (1), 1–24.
Gross, T., Taylor, A.G., Joudrey, D.N., 2015. Still a lot to lose: the role of controlled
vocabulary in keyword searching. Cataloging Classif. Q. 53 (1), 1–39.
Grubb, M., Koch, M., Thomson, K., Sullivan, F., Munson, A., 2019. The’Earth
Summit’Agreements: A Guide and Assessment: an Analysis of the Rio’92 UN
Conference on Environment and Development. Routledge..
Hair Jr., J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2017. A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications, USA.
Herremans, I., Allwright David, E., 2000. Environmental management systems at North
American universities: what drives good performance? Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. 1
(2), 168–181.
Hill, R.C., Bowen, P.A., 1997. Sustainable construction: principles and a framework for
attainment. Construct. Manag. Econ. 15 (3), 223–239.
Hu, Q., Peng, Y., Guo, C., Cai, D., Su, P., 2019. Dynamic incentive mechanism design for
recycling construction and demolition waste under dual information asymmetry.
Sustainability 11.
Huang, B., Wang, X., Kua, H., Geng, Y., Bleischwitz, R., Ren, J., 2018. Construction and
demolition waste management in China through the 3R principle. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 129, 36–44.
Husgafvel, R., Pajunen, N., Virtanen, K., Paavola, I.-L., P€a€allysaho, M., Inkinen, V.,
Heiskanen, K., Dahl, O., Ekroos, A., 2015. Social sustainability performance
indicators – experiences from process industry. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 8 (1), 14–25.
Jain, S., Singhal, S., Jain, N.K., Bhaskar, K., 2020. Construction and demolition waste
recycling: investigating the role of theory of planned behavior, institutional pressures
and environmental consciousness. J. Clean. Prod. 263, 121405.
J€anicke, M., 2012. “Green growth”: from a growing eco-industry to economic
sustainability. Energy Pol. 48, 13–21.
Jia, S., Liu, X., Yan, G., 2018. Dynamic analysis of construction and demolition waste
management model based on system dynamics and grey model approach. Clean
Technol. Environ. Policy 20 (9), 2089–2107.
Kabirifar, K., Mojtahedi, M., 2019. The impact of engineering, procurement and
construction (EPC) phases on project performance: a case of large-scale residential
construction project. Buildings 9 (1), 15.
K. Kabirifar et al.
Kabirifar, K., Mojtahedi, M., Wang, C., Tam, V.W.Y., 2020. Construction and demolition
waste management contributing factors coupled with reduce, reuse, and recycle
strategies for effective waste management: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 263, 121265.
Karaz, M., Teixeira, J.C., Rahla, K.M., 2021. Construction and demolition waste—a shift
toward lean construction and building information model. In: Rodrigues, H.,
Gaspar, F., Fernandes, P., Mateus, A. (Eds.), Sustainability and Automation in Smart
Constructions. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 51–58.
Karunasena, G., Amaratunga, D., 2016. Capacity building for post disaster construction
and demolition waste management: a case of Sri Lanka. Disaster Prev. Manag. 25 (2),
137–153.
Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., 2003. Governance for Sustainability through Transition
Management. Open Meeting of Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change
Research Community, Montreal, Canada.
Kong, L., Ma, B., 2020. Evaluation of environmental impact of construction waste disposal
based on fuzzy set analysis. Environ. Technol. Innovat. 19, 100877.
Koroneos, C.J., Rokos, D., 2012. Sustainable and integrated development—a critical
analysis. Sustainability 4 (1), 141–153.
Kulatunga, U., Amaratunga, D., Haigh, R., Rameezdeen, R., 2006. Attitudes and
perceptions of construction workforce on construction waste in Sri Lanka. Manag.
Environ. Qual. Int. J. 17 (1), 57–72.
Li, R.Y.M., Du, H., 2015. Sustainable Construction Waste Management in Australia: a
Motivation Perspective, Construction Safety and Waste Management. Springer,
pp. 1–30.
Li, H., Chen, Z., Yong, L., Kong, S.C., 2005. Application of integrated GPS and GIS
technology for reducing construction waste and improving construction efficiency.
Autom. ConStruct. 14 (3), 323–331.
Li, J., Tam, V.W., Zuo, J., Zhu, J., 2015. Designers’ attitude and behaviour towards
construction waste minimization by design: a study in Shenzhen, China. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 105, 29–35.
Li, J., Zuo, J., Cai, H., Zillante, G., 2018. Construction waste reduction behavior of
contractor employees: an extended theory of planned behavior model approach.
J. Clean. Prod. 172, 1399–1408.
Li, D., Peng, Y., Guo, C., Tan, R., 2019. Pricing strategy of construction and demolition
waste considering retailer fairness concerns under a governmental regulation
environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 16 (20), 3896.
Lingard, H., Rowlinson, S., 1997. Behavior-based safety management in Hong Kong’s
construction industry. J. Saf. Res. 28 (4), 243–256.
Lingard, H., Graham, P., Smithers, G., 2000. Employee perceptions of the solid waste
management system operating in a large Australian contracting organization:
implications for company policy implementation. Construct. Manag. Econ. 18 (4),
383–393.
Liu, J., Li, G., Li, H., Wang, Z., 2017. Planned behavior theory-based study on the
influencing factors in construction waste reducing willingness——with construction
workers as an example. Ekoloji 26 (102), 13–28.
Liu, H., Long, H., Li, X., 2020a. Identification of critical factors in construction and
demolition waste recycling by the grey-DEMATEL approach: a Chinese perspective.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 27 (8), 8507–8525.
Liu, J., Nie, J., Yuan, H., 2020b. Interactive decisions of the waste producer and the
recycler in construction waste recycling. J. Clean. Prod. 256, 120403.
Long, H., Liu, H., Li, X., Chen, L., 2020. An evolutionary game theory study for
construction and demolition waste recycling considering green development
performance under the Chinese government’s reward–penalty mechanism. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Publ. Health 17 (17), 6303.
Lu, W., Yuan, H., 2011. A framework for understanding waste management studies in
construction. Waste Manag. 31 (6), 1252–1260.
Lu, W., Peng, Y., Webster, C., Zuo, J., 2015. Stakeholders’ willingness to pay for enhanced
construction waste management: a Hong Kong study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
47, 233–240.
Ma, L., Zhang, L., 2020. Evolutionary game analysis of construction waste recycling
management in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 161, 104863.
Mak, T.M., Iris, K., Wang, L., Hsu, S.-C., Tsang, D.C., Li, C., Yeung, T.L., Zhang, R.,
Poon, C.S., 2019. Extended theory of planned behaviour for promoting construction
waste recycling in Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 83, 161–170.
Marrero, M., Puerto, M., Rivero-Camacho, C., Freire-Guerrero, A., Solís-Guzm
an, J., 2017.
Assessing the economic impact and ecological footprint of construction and
demolition waste during the urbanization of rural land. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 117,
160–174.
Marzouk, M., Azab, S., 2014. Environmental and economic impact assessment of
construction and demolition waste disposal using system dynamics. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 82, 41–49.
Mau
es, L.M.F., Nascimento, B.d.M.O.d., Lu, W., Xue, F., 2020. Estimating construction
waste generation in residential buildings: a fuzzy set theory approach in the Brazilian
Amazon. J. Clean. Prod. 265, 121779.
Menegaki, M., Damigos, D., 2018. A review on current situation and challenges of
construction and demolition waste management. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem.
13, 8–15.
Murtagh, N., Roberts, A., Hind, R., 2016. The relationship between motivations of
architectural designers and environmentally sustainable construction design.
Construct. Manag. Econ. 34 (1), 61–75.
Olson, J.M., Zanna, M.P., 1993. Interdependence of Attitude Theory and Measurement,
Attitude Structure and Function. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Ohio State
University, USA, pp. 117–154.
Ortiz, O., Castells, F., Sonnemann, G., 2009. Sustainability in the construction industry: a
review of recent developments based on LCA. Construct. Build. Mater. 23 (1), 28–39.
Osmani, M., Glass, J., Price, A.D.F., 2008. Architects’ perspectives on construction waste
reduction by design. Waste Manag. 28 (7), 1147–1158.
11
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 1 (2020) 100019
Ostrom, T.M., 1989. Interdependence of Attitude Theory and Measurement, Attitude
Structure and Function. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Ohio State University, USA,
pp. 11–36.
Pauli, G.A., 2010. The Blue Economy: 10 Years, 100 Innovations, 100 Million Jobs.
Paradigm publications, New Mexico, USA.
Peng, C.-L., Scorpio, D.E., Kibert, C.J., 1997. Strategies for successful construction and
demolition waste recycling operations. Construct. Manag. Econ. 15 (1), 49–58.
Penning de Vries, B.B.L., van Smeden, M., Rosendaal, F.R., Groenwold, R.H.H., 2020.
Title, abstract, and keyword searching resulted in poor recovery of articles in
systematic reviews of epidemiologic practice. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 121, 55–61.
Pomponi, F., Moncaster, A., 2017. Circular economy for the built environment: a research
framework. J. Clean. Prod. 143, 710–718.
Poon, C.-S., Chan, D., 2007. The use of recycled aggregate in concrete in Hong Kong.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 50 (3), 293–305.
Poon, C.S., Yu, A.T.W., Ng, L.H., 2001. On-site sorting of construction and demolition
waste in Hong Kong. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 32 (2), 157–172.
Ramayah, T., Lee, J.W.C., Lim, S., 2012. Sustaining the environment through recycling:
an empirical study. J. Environ. Manag. 102, 141–147.
Reed, M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature
review. Biol. Conserv. 141 (10), 2417–2431.
Saenger, P., Hegerl, E., Davie, J.D., 1983. Global status of mangrove ecosystems.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Switzerland.
Commission on Ecology Papers Number 3 (volume 3).
Saez, P.V., del Río Merino, M., Gonz
alez, A.S.-A., Porras-Amores, C., 2013. Best practice
measures assessment for construction and demolition waste management in building
constructions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 75, 52–62.
Sala, S., Ciuffo, B., Nijkamp, P., 2015. A systemic framework for sustainability
assessment. Ecol. Econ. 119, 314–325.
Saunders, J., Wynn, P., 2004. Attitudes towards waste minimisation amongst labour only
sub-contractors. Struct. Surv. 22 (3), 148–155.
Sekaran, U., Bougie, R., 2016. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach.
John Wiley & Sons, UK.
Shen, L.Y., Tam Vivian, W.Y., Tam, C.M., Drew, D., 2004. Mapping approach for
examining waste management on construction sites. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 130
(4), 472–481.
Shen, H., Peng, Y., Guo, C., 2018. Analysis of the evolution game of construction and
demolition waste recycling behavior based on prospect theory under environmental
regulation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 15 (7).
Shertzer, J., Wall, V., Frandsen, A., Guo, Y., Whalen, D.F., Shelley, I., Mack, C., 2005. Four
dimensions of student leadership: what predicts students’ attitudes toward leadership
developrnent? Coll. Student Aff. J. 25 (1), 85.
Shiers, D., Weston, J., Wilson, E., Glasson, J., Deller, L., 2014. Implementing new EU
environmental law: the short life of the UK site waste management plan regulations.
J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 57 (7), 1003–1022.
Solís-Guzm
an, J., Marrero, M., Montes-Delgado, M.V., Ramírez-de-Arellano, A., 2009.
A Spanish model for quantification and management of construction waste. Waste
Manag. 29 (9), 2542–2548.
Starik, M., Kanashiro, P., 2013. Toward a theory of sustainability management:
uncovering and integrating the nearly obvious. Organ. Environ. 26 (1), 7–30.
Starik, M., Rands, G.P., 1995. Weaving an integrated web: multilevel and multisystem
perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (4),
908–935.
Steurer, R., Langer, M.E., Konrad, A., Martinuzzi, A., 2005. Corporations, stakeholders
and sustainable development I: a theoretical exploration of business–society
relations. J. Bus. Ethics 61 (3), 263–281.
Su, Y., 2020. Multi-agent evolutionary game in the recycling utilization of construction
waste. Sci. Total Environ. 738, 139826.
Sun, M., Geelhoed, E., Caleb-Solly, P., Morrell, A., 2015. Knowledge and attitudes of small
builders toward sustainable homes in the UK. J. Green Build. 10 (2), 215–233.
Tam, V.W.Y., Li, J., Cai, H., 2014. System dynamic modeling on construction waste
management in Shenzhen, China. Waste Manag. Res. 32 (5), 441–453.
Tammemagi, H.Y., 1999. The Waste Crisis: Landfills, Incinerators, and the Search for a
Sustainable Future. Oxford university press, New York, USA.
Teo, M., Loosemore, M., 2001. A theory of waste behaviour in the construction industry.
Construct. Manag. Econ. 19 (7), 741–751.
Teo, M.M., Loosemore, M., Masosszeky, M., Karim, K., 2000. Operatives attitudes towards
waste on a construction project. Annual Conference–ARCOM, pp. 509–517.
Udawatta, N., Zuo, J., Chiveralls, K., Zillante, G., 2015. Attitudinal and behavioural
approaches to improving waste management on construction projects in Australia:
benefits and limitations. Int. J. Construct. Manag. 15 (2), 137–147.
Wahi, N., Joseph, C., Tawie, R., Ikau, R., 2016. Critical review on construction waste
control practices: legislative and waste management perspective. Procedia Soc.
Behav. Sci. 224, 276–283.
Wang, Q., Waltman, L., 2016. Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal
classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus. J. Inf. 10 (2), 347–364.
Wang, J., Wu, H., Tam, V.W.Y., Zuo, J., 2019. Considering life-cycle environmental
impacts and society’s willingness for optimizing construction and demolition waste
management fee: an empirical study of China. J. Clean. Prod. 206, 1004–1014.
Won, J., Cheng, J.C., 2017. Identifying potential opportunities of building information
modeling for construction and demolition waste management and minimization.
Autom. ConStruct. 79, 3–18.
Wong, E.O., Yip, R.C., 2004. Promoting sustainable construction waste management in
Hong Kong. Construct. Manag. Econ. 22 (6), 563–566.
Wood Donna, J., Jones Raymond, E., 1995. Stakeholder mismatching: a theoretical
problem IN empirical research ON corporate social performance. Int. J. Organ. Anal.
3 (3), 229–267.
K. Kabirifar et al.
Wood, D.J., Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Bryan, L.M., 2018. Stakeholder identification and
salience after 20 Years: progress, problems, and prospects. Bus. Soc.,
0007650318816522
Wreder, Å., Johansson, P., Garvare, R., 2009. Towards a stakeholder methodology:
experiences from public eldercare. TQM J. 21 (2), 194–202.
Wu, Z., Yu, A.T.W., Shen, L., 2017. Investigating the determinants of contractor’s
construction and demolition waste management behavior in Mainland China. Waste
Manag. 60, 290–300.
Wu, H., Zuo, J., Yuan, H., Zillante, G., Wang, J., 2019a. A review of performance
assessment methods for construction and demolition waste management. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 150, 104407.
Wu, H., Zuo, J., Zillante, G., Wang, J., Yuan, H., 2019b. Status quo and future directions of
construction and demolition waste research: a critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 240,
118163.
Ximenes, F.A., Cowie, A.L., Barlaz, M.A., 2018. The decay of engineered wood products
and paper excavated from landfills in Australia. Waste Manag. 74, 312–322.
Yang, B., Song, X., Yuan, H., Zuo, J., 2020. A model for investigating construction
workers’ waste reduction behaviors. J. Clean. Prod. 121841.
Yazdani, M., Kabirifar, K., Frimpong, B.E., Shariati, M., Mirmozaffari, M., Boskabadi, A.,
2021. Improving construction and demolition waste collection service in an urban
area using a simheuristic approach: a case study in Sydney, Australia. J. Clean. Prod.
280, 124138.
12
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 1 (2020) 100019
Yeheyis, M., Hewage, K., Alam, M.S., Eskicioglu, C., Sadiq, R., 2013. An overview of
construction and demolition waste management in Canada: a lifecycle analysis
approach to sustainability. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 15 (1), 81–91.
Yu, A.T.W., Poon, C.S., Wong, A., Yip, R., Jaillon, L., 2013. Impact of construction waste
disposal charging scheme on work practices at construction sites in Hong Kong.
Waste Manag. 33 (1), 138–146.
Yuan, H., 2012. A model for evaluating the social performance of construction waste
management. Waste Manag. 32 (6), 1218–1228.
Yuan, H., 2013. Key indicators for assessing the effectiveness of waste management in
construction projects. Ecol. Indicat. 24, 476–484.
Yuan, H., Shen, L., 2011. Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste
management. Waste Manag. 31 (4), 670–679.
Yuan, F., Shen, L.-y., Li, Q.-m., 2011. Emergy analysis of the recycling options for
construction and demolition waste. Waste Manag. 31 (12), 2503–2511.
Yuan, H., Chini, A.R., Lu, Y., Shen, L., 2012. A dynamic model for assessing the effects of
management strategies on the reduction of construction and demolition waste. Waste
Manag. 32 (3), 521–531.
Yuan, H., Lu, W., Hao, J.J., 2013. The evolution of construction waste sorting on-site.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 20, 483–490.
Yuan, H., Wu, H., Zuo, J., 2018. Understanding factors influencing project managers’
behavioral intentions to reduce waste in construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 34 (6),
04018031.
Zeng, S., Ma, H., Lin, H., Zeng, R., Tam, V.W., 2015. Social responsibility of major
infrastructure projects in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (3), 537–548.